First Wolf Kill of Livestock in Colorado

[Trap]

Trap, do you consider Defenders of Wildlife to be an anti-hunting organization?

Let me google it lol

 

[Trap]

Trap, do you consider Defenders of Wildlife to be an anti-hunting organization?

Definitely part of the problem says they protect habitat I would like to see what dollars go where. How much of revenue is spent in lawsuits? They are promoting that wolves were “ stripped “ of Esa protection even though we are more than 10x the minimum number in Idaho at what point do they feel a wolf is not endangered. I don’t expect you to do a term paper my guess is 99 percent of money spent in lawsuits protecting wolves that are 10 times over objective and other imagined problems. Be interesting to see if there habitat work involves mainly lawsuits to stop logging etc. I would like to know if they ever actually purchased habitat outright without working with something like nature conservancy. I imagine nature conservancy does something but they take credit for working alongside? It’s a serial litigation organization I think sueing for all the wrong reasons

 

[Newtosavage]

Definitely part of the problem says they protect habitat I would like to see what dollars go where. How much of revenue is spent in lawsuits? They are promoting that wolves were “ stripped “ of Esa protection even though we are more than 10x the minimum number in Idaho at what point do they feel a wolf is not endangered. I don’t expect you to do a term paper my guess is 99 percent of money spent in lawsuits protecting wolves that are 10 times over objective and other imagined problems. Be interesting to see if there habitat work involves mainly lawsuits to stop logging etc. I would like to know if they ever actually purchased habitat outright without working with something like nature conservancy. I imagine nature conservancy does something but they take credit for working alongside? It’s a serial litigation organization I think sueing for all the wrong reasons

Erm... that's what you got out of your google search?

 

[arock]

This is a very personal, you're either with us or again' us mentality and it's not very productive for anything other than you getting your feelings out. Calm down.

Citizens always have a right to decide how their money is spent. What exactly are you proposing? Socialism? Communism? It's up to the wildlife agencies to EDUCATE the citizenry, using good science, but at the end of the day the citizens decide because it's their damn money and their resources.

In a perfect world, sure, the wildlife professionals would get to make the decisions. Just like in a perfect world law enforcement officers and teachers would be listened to and respected and everyone would get along.

You want to continue to paint me as the problem and I'm telling you bud, if you can't convince me, a fellow hunter, you have zero chance with joe and jill public.

Oh, as for hunters being the foremost conservationists, you are living a daydream if you believe that. This is what I mean by the narrative you have running your head. I know that's what the hunting rags have been telling us all for 50 years, but in practice there are some hunters who care, some who will gladly break the rules at every opportunity, and a whole lot who are indifferent. Just like every other group of people out there.

I'd disagree with that point. The ballot referendum system is anarchy at best and relying on a simple majority to make decisions is a scary notion. In classical western philosophy the only thing worse than a despot was a democracy. Citizens have a right to decide who they will delegate to spend their money.

If we go by the dictionary then federal lands (or state for that matter) and resources (the animals) that are owned by the citizens and managed by the state is in fact a form of communism. I'd argue that is a better system then leaving it up to the mob on a 50/50 vote. Ideally, the people that are making those decisions would be elected representatives or at least appointed and confirmed by elected representatives and have that power delegated to them. The alternative is the TX model where everything is a private range and you can pay for admission assuming that the land isn't ripped apart for minerals and timber.

It sucks that they could lose the spring bear season in Washington but at least there is a committee focused on the issue that is making the decision rather than a simple majority of the population.

Kind of interesting how the Red wolf introduction in the south east has been largely a failure.

I think the conservationist angle is more in terms of gross dollars. So hunting, fishing, trapping licenses stamps and stuff + the tax on weapons and ammunition makes up a good chunk of change. RMEF reported that in 2017 796 million dollars in license revenue was a thing. It would be a problem and conservation efforts would be impacted if that number decreased significantly.

 

[Trap]

Erm... that's what you got out of your google search?

Yes I focused on the wolves and once I seen the fundraising effort’s to halt western wolf management I had seen enough. Thanks for having the guts to take another side on the wolf issue. Both sides need to be presented especially on a hunting forum. Everyone is free to decide what wolves mean or don’t mean for western hunting. I hope hunters that have not experienced their hunting areas over run with wolves can take a second look at the narrative constantly in their faces about how great wolves are.Or even the narrative that they don’t really devastate elk herds when left unmanaged. Honestly read what hunters who have experienced wolves in their area have said. It’s not that the hunters can’t kill elk so they blame wolves. Most including myself still harvest elk every year. It’s about special places and great herds that don’t exist anymore. The X factor was wolves that’s the only thing that changed in my former special places. I also hope people will connect the dots on this huge emphasis on protecting all predators at the expense of other wildlife. Honestly look at their actions not what they say. Ask yourself what is there end goal? Consider the North American wildlife model and look at the number of deer before and after the model. Look at elk and ducks pretty much most big and small game has flourished and it all depends on tag revenue which REQUIRES exces deer and elk. Why would a group want to change this and drop an unmanaged apex predator in the middle of herds struggling with increasing hunter demand and decreasing habitat? I hope all hunters honestly examine the actions of these groups. Why would they eliminate hound hunting and then pay hired houndsmen to kill and destroy a mountain lion making no use of any part? (California) Wolves are not easy to manage. I have enjoyed hunting and trapping wolves but honestly have had success but it’s been very limited given the time and effort. Wolves are very hard to manage and reproduce RAPIDLY. WHY aren’t there ever enough wolves? We are way over objective and animal rights groups are suing Idaho right now to halt all management. If you think it’s cool to have wolves please consider the actions of these groups that are pro wolf. Thanks for the discussion I am finishing work today and taking a week to lion hunt but I will try and take a wolf too

 

[Newtosavage]

Good luck on your hunts.

 

[Newtosavage]

I'd disagree with that point. The ballot referendum system is anarchy at best and relying on a simple majority to make decisions is a scary notion. In classical western philosophy the only thing worse than a despot was a democracy. Citizens have a right to decide who they will delegate to spend their money.

If we go by the dictionary then federal lands (or state for that matter) and resources (the animals) that are owned by the citizens and managed by the state is in fact a form of communism. I'd argue that is a better system then leaving it up to the mob on a 50/50 vote. Ideally, the people that are making those decisions would be elected representatives or at least appointed and confirmed by elected representatives and have that power delegated to them. The alternative is the TX model where everything is a private range and you can pay for admission assuming that the land isn't ripped apart for minerals and timber.

It sucks that they could lose the spring bear season in Washington but at least there is a committee focused on the issue that is making the decision rather than a simple majority of the population.

Kind of interesting how the Red wolf introduction in the south east has been largely a failure.

I think the conservationist angle is more in terms of gross dollars. So hunting, fishing, trapping licenses stamps and stuff + the tax on weapons and ammunition makes up a good chunk of change. RMEF reported that in 2017 796 million dollars in license revenue was a thing. It would be a problem and conservation efforts would be impacted if that number decreased significantly.

Democracy is great until the majority doesn't see things your way.

 

[Indian Summer]

It’s amazing how a person can have little to no self awareness. NTS you have no clue but you are a wolf hugger AND an anti hunter. I know…. difficult to comprehend.

No facts. Don’t care to reply to facts presented by others. Doesn’t live in elk country but knows what goes on there. Not really even an elk hunter but has unmeasurable knowledge on the subject and the history of it. Wtf are you even doing here?

You pay for health insurance. When a problem arises what do you do? Let the people your insurance company pays, the doctors, handle the diagnosis and treatment? Or do you go out in the waiting room and get the opinions of other people who pay for insurance and take a vote because since you guys paid your money you should be making the decisions right? Wildlife management is no different. We pay professionals to make decisions. Everyone is certainly free to voice their opinions. But if the spend millions of dollars to go to court to force their opinions on us and the states a line has been crossed.

Could you respectfully answer a few of the questions asked? I’ll answer a few for you. You live in Texas and have barely scratched the surface of elk hunting. Have you ever lost income or your entire livelihood as a result of a lack of predator management? Do you think the videos of fuzzy little wolf puppies are heartwarming? Are you a hypocrite? I can answer that one for you without Googling jack schidt.

One more…. Ok 2….. What do you know about the affects of wolves on elk moose and deer and what do you think should have been done differently? How should wolf management be handled now that we have facts to base decisions on?

Calm down now and answer them one at a time ok….

 

[3325]

I have mixed feelings about predators and in reading the posts on this thread, most people seem to be at one extreme or the other, pro or anti. Since my feelings about predators are between the extremes, I feel confident that I'm able to offend both sides of this argument.

I like wild places and wild creatures, so I like the idea of a predator population - land of Lewis and Clark and all of that. But the reality is that this is the 21st Century and where we were once islands of settlement in a sea of wilderness, we are now islands of wilderness in a sea of settlement. I believe that means arguments about what is "native" or "natural" to a region might be used to guide public policy but can't be used as the final word. But neither can arguments about livelihood and ranching heritage. Considered? Yes. Played like a trump card? No.

In general, I want to see sustainable populations of Grizzlies, wolves, and cougars and I want a hunting season on Grizzlies, wolves, and cougars. Where the balance is between having a few and killing a few, I don't know, but I want to have a few and kill a few.

 

[Indian Summer]

To be fair it could have been border collies. How do you feel about this wolf hugger?

Wolves slaughter 19 elk in Wyoming

A pack of wolves slaughtered a herd of elk in one night, Wyoming wildlife officials said Friday.

amp.cnn.com

 

[BuzzH]

To be fair it could have been border collies. How do you feel about this wolf hugger?

Wolves slaughter 19 elk in Wyoming

A pack of wolves slaughtered a herd of elk in one night, Wyoming wildlife officials said Friday.

amp.cnn.com

This happens so often you have to dig up a 6 year old article...

Where are all the photos of this same thing happening prior to and after? There are none and why this one-off article gets brought up in every wolf discussion. It was an anomaly, perfect storm...fact.

Care to talk about the bitterroot elk calf mortality study on what is the leading cause of predation? How about the Idaho fg study on elk predation?

Probably not....because neither confirms your bias.

Nobody is arguing wolves kill deer, elk, and moose. But they aren't the only thing, by a gdamn country mile, impacting wild ungulate populations.

What I can tell you is prior to wolf reintroduction I could shoot one elk a year in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.

After reintroduction I could, and have, shot multiple elk a year in both Montana and Wyoming. In fact I've shot 3 elk in Wyoming for the last several years. Yes, in areas that have wolves.

You going to argue I haven't?

Crap management has killed a lot of elk in both Idaho and Montana.

Finally if you and others are so concerned about wolf predation on elk...just curious how many wolf tags you've punched this year?

Maybe instead of crying and pouting about the wolf population...go do something about it. Ten tags a year in Montana, no limit or tag requirements in 2/3 of Wyoming, bunch of tags in Idaho too.

 

[Billinsd]

Democracy is great until the majority doesn't see things your way.

We don't live in a Democracy, we live in a Democratic Republic, just saying.

 

[Hoodie]

I don't think it's hard to have a balanced opinion on predators and predator management. People's tendencies to lean towards the outer ends of the spectrum just make it hard for actual policy to be balanced. Mostly because the loudest voices are either the "smoke a pack a day" crowd or the Portland/San Francisco/Seattle crowd whose personal experience with wolves consists of seeing that one Ted Talk about how they change rivers.

I'm cool with wolves being anywhere they were historically so long as sensible population objectives are set and tag allotments/season structures align with those objectives. The problem is this usually doesn't happen, mostly because of the people at the far ends of the spectrum.

"Smoke a pack a day" bumper stickers convince people who don't hunt but want to see intact ecosystems that hunters would extirpate wolves again if they could. It's a bad look. Lawsuits popping up the minute any state game agency proposes actually managing wolf populations that are above objective convince hunters that antis won't ever allow management that sustains healthy ungulate herds.

I don't live or hunt in the part of my state that has many wolves. I will say that people who live with the Coast Range or Cascades in their back yard in Oregon still seem to spend the gas money to go hunt the Eastside every year, even while they complain about wolves eating all the elk and deer. They also go hunt Idaho, which I'm pretty sure has more wolves than anywhere in the lower 48.

Major habitat changes in my neck of the woods tanked the elk herds before wolves had a chance to. Lots of pieces to the puzzle.

 

[Trap]

I'd disagree with that point. The ballot referendum system is anarchy at best and relying on a simple majority to make decisions is a scary notion. In classical western philosophy the only thing worse than a despot was a democracy. Citizens have a right to decide who they will delegate to spend their money.

If we go by the dictionary then federal lands (or state for that matter) and resources (the animals) that are owned by the citizens and managed by the state is in fact a form of communism. I'd argue that is a better system then leaving it up to the mob on a 50/50 vote. Ideally, the people that are making those decisions would be elected representatives or at least appointed and confirmed by elected representatives and have that power delegated to them. The alternative is the TX model where everything is a private range and you can pay for admission assuming that the land isn't ripped apart for minerals and timber.

It sucks that they could lose the spring bear season in Washington but at least there is a committee focused on the issue that is making the decision rather than a simple majority of the population.

Kind of interesting how the Red wolf introduction in the south east has been largely a failure.

I think the conservationist angle is more in terms of gross dollars. So hunting, fishing, trapping licenses stamps and stuff + the tax on weapons and ammunition makes up a good chunk of change. RMEF reported that in 2017 796 million dollars in license revenue was a thing. It would be a problem and conservation efforts would be impacted if that number decreased significantly.

I have mixed feelings about predators and in reading the posts on this thread, most people seem to be at one extreme or the other, pro or anti. Since my feelings about predators are between the extremes, I feel confident that I'm able to offend both sides of this argument.

I like wild places and wild creatures, so I like the idea of a predator population - land of Lewis and Clark and all of that. But the reality is that this is the 21st Century and where we were once islands of settlement in a sea of wilderness, we are now islands of wilderness in a sea of settlement. I believe that means arguments about what is "native" or "natural" to a region might be used to guide public policy but can't be used as the final word. But neither can arguments about livelihood and ranching heritage. Considered? Yes. Played like a trump card? No.

In general, I want to see sustainable populations of Grizzlies, wolves, and cougars and I want a hunting season on Grizzlies, wolves, and cougars. Where the balance is between having a few and killing a few, I don't know, but I want to have a few and kill a few.

I have been on a rant so you might consider me totally anti predator. Nothing could be further from the truth I enjoy predator hunting and having them around. I come off really strong against the pro wolf and predator crowd because they want unlimited predators and virtually no management.

 

[Newtosavage]

We don't live in a Democracy, we live in a Democratic Republic, just saying.

There's always that guy. LOL

 

[Newtosavage]

I don't think it's hard to have a balanced opinion on predators and predator management. People's tendencies to lean towards the outer ends of the spectrum just make it hard for actual policy to be balanced. Mostly because the loudest voices are either the "smoke a pack a day" crowd or the Portland/San Francisco/Seattle crowd whose personal experience with wolves consists of seeing that one Ted Talk about how they change rivers.

I'm cool with wolves being anywhere they were historically so long as sensible population objectives are set and tag allotments/season structures align with those objectives. The problem is this usually doesn't happen, mostly because of the people at the far ends of the spectrum.

"Smoke a pack a day" bumper stickers convince people who don't hunt but want to see intact ecosystems that hunters would extirpate wolves again if they could. It's a bad look. Lawsuits popping up the minute any state game agency proposes actually managing wolf populations that are above objective convince hunters that antis won't ever allow management that sustains healthy ungulate herds.

I don't live or hunt in the part of my state that has many wolves. I will say that people who live with the Coast Range or Cascades in their back yard in Oregon still seem to spend the gas money to go hunt the Eastside every year, even while they complain about wolves eating all the elk and deer. They also go hunt Idaho, which I'm pretty sure has more wolves than anywhere in the lower 48.

Major habitat changes in my neck of the woods tanked the elk herds before wolves had a chance to. Lots of pieces to the puzzle.

Said it much better than I could.

 

[Billinsd]

There's always that guy. LOL

That's me. I never knew it, or remembered it myself. Now, I'll never forget. As far as ballot measures, they are passed by majority in California, unless our elected officials disagree with them. That's called tyranny. I'm totally against full democracy, because people are too stupid to make decisions, for example wildlife decisions. Carry on.

 

[Super tag]

I have punched a tag as have a lot of others on this thread, it’s not easy though as wolves are very smart and adapt quickly, I think what the pro wolf group doesn’t get is the destruction these wolf packs cause is much worse than they can comprehend. There’s no natural balance involved, I routinely find dead elk in the spring that are killed for sport, there are far too many wolves already, and no we don’t need any more anywhere, they have drastically changed Idaho elk hunting period, no question, And you can bet your a— they’ll change Colorado too and it won’t take long. These wolves are killing machines, destructive, not an asset in any way.

 

[Newtosavage]

Momma always said don't kill it unless you plan to eat it.

Makes me wonder how wolves taste.

 

[NEWAoutdoors]

Good thing your not in charge of predator management